Gun attitudes changing in Mass?

[Nitro]

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/Permits-for-concealed-weapons-gone?

A ridiculous amount of progun comments on that article, the few anti's get slapped down hard. I like it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There's clearly a 'renaissance' going on here in MA and everywhere else. I see it every day. One of the gauges we have to measure here in MA is the safety course requirement. Look at all the people getting their instructor credentials and look at how busy we are. I personally train A LOT of people every month. Demographically, they're exactly what you want - a robust sampling of everybody.

 

[glide]

The subjects' attitudes may be changing in small numbers, but the rulers' are not.

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

The subjects' attitudes may be changing in small numbers, but the rulers' are not.

This^^^^ attitudes will change but you will never get the ridiculous guns laws in this state changed once they are on the books.

 

[Dench]

but you will never get the ridiculous guns laws in this state changed once they are on the books.

thats the spirit.

 

[JimB]

rulers can be changed, and their minds can also be changed. i personally think

(IMHO) that some training should be required, some folks have never

handled a gun. as for permitting, i don't have a firm answer. One young

(emphasis on young) felt permitting should be required, criminals might

get them..... well their in a special class, "no permit required"

i certainly don't think that the FFL should be responsilbe to make that

determination.

 

[neEEGuru]

Permits are useless, a burden, a violation of our rights and serve no purpose. Criminals don't need permits, and don't follow gun/storage laws, why do law abiding citizens need to?

I do feel that some small amount of basic training should be had by all. Maybe teach it to everyone in 5th grade? I don't have the answer to that one and obviously mandating training in our current system will always lead to abuses (must have range time, but no ranges in state; only LEO can train, you must pay $400 and it's their discretion if your 'trained', etc... you get the idea).

So I have no definitive answer to that one. Again, maybe part of a standard home ec curriculum in grade school?

Anyway, "Shall NOT be infringed"

I have been getting the feeling that gun attitudes are certainly changing in NH at least, and I know a lot of MA gun shops have been super busy. All great things

 

[MisterHappy]

I see incremental change. Unfortunately, we're so outnumbered, the increments are not overly significant.

The institutional inertia is a big problem, too. There's a big issue with a lot of people when it comes to "eliminating laws" that are there for public safety. "Oh my gawd! There'll be blood in the streets!"

Facts are not what drives the Antis - it's ideology. And their primary weapon in the conflict is fear.

The idea that there should be more widespread education and training WRT guns is anethema. If firearms are not inherently evil, then the basis of a lot of the Antis' arguments are gone.

 

[pdm]

rulers can be changed, and their minds can also be changed. i personally think (IMHO) that some training should be required, some folks have never handled a gun. as for permitting, i don't have a firm answer. One young (emphasis on young) felt permitting should be required, criminals might get them..... well their in a special class, "no permit required" i certainly don't think that the FFL should be responsilbe to make that determination.

You know, you're right. That's why everyone should take a basic marksmanship and safety class in high school or not get their diploma. Think the teacher's union will get behind that?